Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

cubic_spleen:Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Remember the last time they tried that stunt? Some CEO stood up at a press conference, produced a glass of what he claimed to be fracking fluid, and even then he had an underling drink it.

I want truth in press conferences. Get the primary stockholder and whole board of executives, take them out to a drilling sight and have them each drain a gallon straight off the well-head's teat and chug it themselves.

In theory, I don't have a problem with oil companies disclosing what's in their mud mixes when drilling. The problem is that it won't help as much as you think, because the companies drilling the wells aren't the ones making the mud additives, and the companies making the mud additives aren't telling anyone what's in them, beyond the most general of terms.

Last time I helped on a drill rig (mobile rotary drill, not an oil rig) we were dumping quik-trol lv into the mud at a pretty good clip. What is quik-trol lv, you ask?

Farked if I know, all that's on the bag is that it is a "cellulosic polymer." Works like magic for stabilizing sand, though, and we had something like 100 ft of sand to drill through before we got to rock....

Elegy:In theory, I don't have a problem with oil companies disclosing what's in their mud mixes when drilling. The problem is that it won't help as much as you think, because the companies drilling the wells aren't the ones making the mud additives, and the companies making the mud additives aren't telling anyone what's in them, beyond the most general of terms.

Last time I helped on a drill rig (mobile rotary drill, not an oil rig) we were dumping quik-trol lv into the mud at a pretty good clip. What is quik-trol lv, you ask?

Farked if I know, all that's on the bag is that it is a "cellulosic polymer." Works like magic for stabilizing sand, though, and we had something like 100 ft of sand to drill through before we got to rock....

So then change the law to say that drilling companies can only use mixes which have the ingredients fully and exactly disclosed. There's no reason that an oil rig shouldn't be required to have the MSDS sheets on the chemicals they're using the same as every other industrial operation.

Say you had some of that 'cellulosic polymer' spilled in your eyes. What are you supposed to do for treatment?

cubic_spleen:Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

I wonder how much these companies pay out annually to make sure the politicians don't get interested in passing bills requiring them to disclose what's in their product. All it is going to take is a big environmental disaster where, say, half a state's underground water source gets contaminated with 'whatever the fracking guys are using', and no amount of money will stop the outrage then.

/it should be disclosed now//meanwhile conservative run states are falling over themselves to allow fracking without limits///like NC :(

Nothing toxic, merely irritating. Full of nonspecific CYA language basically saying if it causes problems call a doctor (because no lawyer would let them say it is 100% harmless under all possible conditions).

Karac:Elegy: In theory, I don't have a problem with oil companies disclosing what's in their mud mixes when drilling. The problem is that it won't help as much as you think, because the companies drilling the wells aren't the ones making the mud additives, and the companies making the mud additives aren't telling anyone what's in them, beyond the most general of terms.

Last time I helped on a drill rig (mobile rotary drill, not an oil rig) we were dumping quik-trol lv into the mud at a pretty good clip. What is quik-trol lv, you ask?

Farked if I know, all that's on the bag is that it is a "cellulosic polymer." Works like magic for stabilizing sand, though, and we had something like 100 ft of sand to drill through before we got to rock....

So then change the law to say that drilling companies can only use mixes which have the ingredients fully and exactly disclosed. There's no reason that an oil rig shouldn't be required to have the MSDS sheets on the chemicals they're using the same as every other industrial operation.

Say you had some of that 'cellulosic polymer' spilled in your eyes. What are you supposed to do for treatment?

Run around screaming "it's in my eyes, oh god, it's in my eeeeeyyyyeeeessss" most probably.

Again, no problem with full disclosure on what drillers are pumping into the ground. I'm just saying that a law like this would produce a list of proprietary additives and little further information, and would probably be of less utility than most people think.

A law like the one you suggest would help immensely, and I think it's a great idea.

Karac:cubic_spleen: Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Remember the last time they tried that stunt? Some CEO stood up at a press conference, produced a glass of what he claimed to be fracking fluid, and even then he had an underling drink it.

I want truth in press conferences. Get the primary stockholder and whole board of executives, take them out to a drilling sight and have them each drain a gallon straight off the well-head's teat and chug it themselves.

The inventor of the Tetraethyl-lead gasoline additive poured some over his hands and inhaled the vapors in a press conference to prove its safety - after he had already been treated for lead poisoning once from working with it.

I have no idea why you would do this, but it makes me think you can't underestimate the amount of damage someone will knowingly do to their body to "prove" their product is safe.

Nothing toxic, merely irritating. Full of nonspecific CYA language basically saying if it causes problems call a doctor (because no lawyer would let them say it is 100% harmless under all possible conditions).

Procedure for cleaning / absorption: Scoop up and remove.

Quik-troll lv is a fairly common additive that isn't widely perceived as toxic - I just used it as an example. It's commonly used when drilling water wells, and you use it in fairly small amounts (1 to 2 lbs per 100 gallons of mud).

FYI, quik-gel and soda ash are the base for the mud used when drilling water wells. Quik-gel is a silicosis threat, so you wear a respirator when mixing it. All of the above are relatively non-toxic and used in routinely drilling water wells. By the end of the day on a rotary rig, you're covered in the stuff. Slimy and unpleasant, but not harsh on the skin or anything.

The chemicals they use for fracking are quite different than the ones I have experience with. Primarily because they are using those chemicals to break rock apart at the bottom of a 1000+ ft hole, and from what I know they tend to be much "heavier" chemical mixes.

I think if Conservatives want to show how safe and inert these fracking chemicals are they should start bottleing and selling the water from these fracking sites as a form of real American resistance to fartbongo and his librul energy haters.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who is the House natural resources chairman, said new rules from Washington are not needed.

"For a long time, 60-70 years, the states have regulated hydraulic fracturing," he told WND. "So there hasn't been a nationwide rule. Frankly, it's for that reason that I think that this proposed regulation is a solution in search of a problem, because the states have done it very, very successfully for a number of years."

Someone hasn't watched the videos of people setting their tap water on fire after the start of fracking in their area. Only a politician would call that successful regulation.

cubic_spleen:Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Except the whole thing is a bit of a dodge: the problem with fracking fluid isn't what goes in, but what comes out.

You can use pure H2O blessed by the Pope passed through crystal tubes polished for a thousand years by the ass of a duck, but once you're done fracking, you wouldn't want to drink it or let it seep into the environment. You probably can't even re-use it as fracking fluid.

But even this is a bit of a dodge: if the fluid is appropriately recovered and safely transported to wherever bad things go, the fracturing can impact water supplies. The real scare isn't over some industrial fluid, but what fracturing is going to do to water quality.

NightSteel:Someone hasn't watched the videos of people setting their tap water on fire after the start of fracking in their area. Only a politician would call that successful regulation.

I hate that this guy is my rep.

I'm a big fan of fracking but the industry is shooting themselves in the foot. The scummier operators are going to keep farking up that bad and keep causing a huge backlash far in proportion to the problem.

Look at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a VERY heavy industry friendly state. Most of the state has worked in coal mines, steel mills, railroad, factories, etc, for several generations. And even THEIR residents are turning big time against fracking.

HypnozombieX:I think if Conservatives want to show how safe and inert these fracking chemicals are they should start bottleing and selling the water from these fracking sites as a form of real American resistance to fartbongo and his librul energy haters.

Xcott:cubic_spleen: Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Except the whole thing is a bit of a dodge: the problem with fracking fluid isn't what goes in, but what comes out.

You can use pure H2O blessed by the Pope passed through crystal tubes polished for a thousand years by the ass of a duck, but once you're done fracking, you wouldn't want to drink it or let it seep into the environment. You probably can't even re-use it as fracking fluid.

But even this is a bit of a dodge: if the fluid is appropriately recovered and safely transported to wherever bad things go, the fracturing can impact water supplies. The real scare isn't over some industrial fluid, but what fracturing is going to do to water quality.

Fair enough: From now on, the executives, board, and all major shareholders of all industries should be required to live on the most polluted land owned, leased, or used by those industries. They can only drink local well water, and can only eat food grown on that land. Anyone who survives a year gets the shares of those who don't. That's at least as fair and open-minded as what the fossil-fuel shills want to force on people who live near fracking grounds.

Skirl Hutsenreiter:Karac: cubic_spleen: Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Remember the last time they tried that stunt? Some CEO stood up at a press conference, produced a glass of what he claimed to be fracking fluid, and even then he had an underling drink it.

I want truth in press conferences. Get the primary stockholder and whole board of executives, take them out to a drilling sight and have them each drain a gallon straight off the well-head's teat and chug it themselves.

The inventor of the Tetraethyl-lead gasoline additive poured some over his hands and inhaled the vapors in a press conference to prove its safety - after he had already been treated for lead poisoning once from working with it.

I have no idea why you would do this, but it makes me think you can't underestimate the amount of damage someone will knowingly do to their body to "prove" their product is safe.

it's that joke "would you sleep with me for $1 million ... for $1 ... we've already established what you are, now we're negotiating on price". i'd say make them drink 8 oz of it and stay seated for 4 hours without emergency crews on hand if he wants to show how "safe" it is.

I can guess the conclusion though. A conservative company, such as an oil company, is on the up-and-up, will tell no lies, and willingly fixes what it breaks. All-o-te-sudden, Libbybama takes office and the libby-libamas in teh icky federal government are from missouri and now say 'show me' instead of 'pinky-swear'?

'bout right?

/and it's all the biggest scandal to scandal a scandal. EVAR!//so, impeach Libama?

cubic_spleen:Xcott: cubic_spleen: Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Except the whole thing is a bit of a dodge: the problem with fracking fluid isn't what goes in, but what comes out.

You can use pure H2O blessed by the Pope passed through crystal tubes polished for a thousand years by the ass of a duck, but once you're done fracking, you wouldn't want to drink it or let it seep into the environment. You probably can't even re-use it as fracking fluid.

But even this is a bit of a dodge: if the fluid is appropriately recovered and safely transported to wherever bad things go, the fracturing can impact water supplies. The real scare isn't over some industrial fluid, but what fracturing is going to do to water quality.

Fair enough: From now on, the executives, board, and all major shareholders of all industries should be required to live on the most polluted land owned, leased, or used by those industries. They can only drink local well water, and can only eat food grown on that land. Anyone who survives a year gets the shares of those who don't. That's at least as fair and open-minded as what the fossil-fuel shills want to force on people who live near fracking grounds.

I get your point, but that still doesn't do it. In many cases, the cancer and other diseases might not show up for years. I think there are a fair number of patriotic job creators who would accept the chance of a case of cancer or MS years from now in order to get really rich now.

The tragedy is that a lot of kids will be exposed, and be born with birth defects, and/or die of wasting diseases 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now. Long after these greedy farks have cashed in, partied on their private islands, and gone on to Supply Side Jebus Land, while saying "I TOLD YOU SO" about Obamacare as the costs to treat their victims spiral out of control.

"For a long time, 60-70 years, the states have regulated hydraulic fracturing," he told WND. "So there hasn't been a nationwide rule. Frankly, it's for that reason that I think that this proposed regulation is a solution in search of a problem, because the states have done it very, very successfully for a number of years."

Look, hon. Representative Dipshiat, I'm relatively right-of-center in general, an engineer by training, and entirely in favor of continuing fossil fuel use at least until we get viable replacements up and running. But you're still a moron. Note:

1. All disclosure requires is that you patent your materials instead of trade-secreting them. That... is not really much of a hassle at all, and as someone with experience in extraction issues, the current trade secret stuff is stupid anyhow.

2. The reason there's not been national-level regulation is that, while fracturing as a technique is older than the internal combustion engine, it's only seen widespread use in the last 4 years, 7 if you're being generous. That's well below the turnover to regulation for most things. And modern surfactants are in many cases almost entirely new.

3. The feds don't have the money to foot the bill for safety testing anymore (largely thanks to your party farking with the EPA budget, Hon. Sir Dipshiat), and the testing still needs doing. Making the people that are making money from the well pay for it is the logical step here.

4. The EPA, which will be assigning the specifics of the policies, has an excellent record of designing controls that address problems without getting in the way of industry, and have been doing it since forever. Shut the fark up and get back to work, you ignorant moron.

Well that's reasonable. Since he has that Time Machinetm in the white house basement he's been using to change history all the way back to the 1960's, he might have a nearly infinite number of birth certificates, on several million worlds and parallel dimensions.

Albeit, it is worth noting that the EPA deals with chemicals whose synthesis and composition aren't explicitly disclosed all the time, they just require laboratory safety tests for toxicity levels instead. So it's not entirely unreasonable that they want to keep their formulae secret, though chemically they're... not really complicated so it is kind of silly.

Kibbler:cubic_spleen: Xcott: cubic_spleen: Simple solution: If the fluids are safe, then all of the executives, board of directors, and major shareholders should be willing to drink a cup of the stuff. And if they are not willing, then they should be forced.

Except the whole thing is a bit of a dodge: the problem with fracking fluid isn't what goes in, but what comes out.

You can use pure H2O blessed by the Pope passed through crystal tubes polished for a thousand years by the ass of a duck, but once you're done fracking, you wouldn't want to drink it or let it seep into the environment. You probably can't even re-use it as fracking fluid.

But even this is a bit of a dodge: if the fluid is appropriately recovered and safely transported to wherever bad things go, the fracturing can impact water supplies. The real scare isn't over some industrial fluid, but what fracturing is going to do to water quality.

Fair enough: From now on, the executives, board, and all major shareholders of all industries should be required to live on the most polluted land owned, leased, or used by those industries. They can only drink local well water, and can only eat food grown on that land. Anyone who survives a year gets the shares of those who don't. That's at least as fair and open-minded as what the fossil-fuel shills want to force on people who live near fracking grounds.

I get your point, but that still doesn't do it. In many cases, the cancer and other diseases might not show up for years. I think there are a fair number of patriotic job creators who would accept the chance of a case of cancer or MS years from now in order to get really rich now.

The tragedy is that a lot of kids will be exposed, and be born with birth defects, and/or die of wasting diseases 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now. Long after these greedy farks have cashed in, partied on their private islands, and gone on to Supply Side Jebus Land, while saying "I TOLD YOU SO" about Obamacare as the costs to treat their ...

I honestly think we're seeing an H.G. Wellian divide in the gene pool like that in the Time Machine. We have Eloi sociopaths who live in luxury and good health because of the suffering of the "inferiors" who make it possible. Hmmm, what would Morlocks do...